ACPD Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions ACPD Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 1680-7375 Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/acpd-10-21023-2010 Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models Probst P. 1 Rizzi R. 1 Tosi E. 1 Lucarini V. 3 2 1 Maestri T. 1 Department of Physics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK Department of Mathematics, University of Reading, Reading, UK 02 09 2010 10 9 21023 21046 Copyright: © 2010 P. Probst et al. 2010 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/10/21023/2010/acpd-10-21023-2010.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/10/21023/2010/acpd-10-21023-2010.pdf

Global and zonal monthly means of cloud cover fraction for <i>total</i> cloudiness (CF) from the ISCCP D2 dataset are compared to same quantity produced by the 20th century simulations of 21 climate models from the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP's) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multi-model dataset archived by the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). The comparison spans the time frame from January 1984 to December 1999 and the global and zonal average of CF are studied. The restriction to total cloudiness depends on the output of some models that does not include the 3D cloud structure. It is shown that the global mean of CF for the PCMDI/CMIP3 models, averaged over the whole period, exhibits a considerable variance and generally underestimates the ISCCP value. Very large discrepancies among models, and between models and observations, are found in the polar areas, where both models and satellite observations are less reliable, and especially near Antarctica. For this reason the zonal analysis is focused over the 60&deg; S–60&deg; N latitudinal belt, which includes the tropical area and mid latitudes. The two hemispheres are analyzed separately to show the variation of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle. Most models overestimate the yearly averaged values of CF over all of the analysed areas, while differences emerge in their ability to capture the amplitude of the seasonal cycle. The models represent, in a qualitatively correct way, the magnitude and the weak sign of the seasonal cycle over the whole geographical domain, but overestimate the strength of the signal in the tropical areas and at mid-latitudes, when taken separately. The interannual variability of the two yearly averages and of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle is greatly underestimated by all models in each area analysed. This work shows that the climate models have an heterogeneous behaviour in simulating the CF over different areas of the Globe, with a very wide span both with observed CF and among themselves. Some models agree quite well with the observations in one or more of the metrics employed in this analysis, but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of CF and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle over all analysed areas.

 References Arking, A.: The radiative effects of clouds and their impact on climate, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 795–813, 1991. Campbell, G. G.: View angle dependence of cloudiness and the trend in ISCCP cloudiness, 13th AMS Conference On Satellite Meteorology And Oceanography, Norfolk, VA, 9/20/2004-9/23/2004, 2004. Campbell, G. G.: Diurnal and angular variability of cloud detection: consistency between polar and geosynchronous ISCCP products, Preprints, 14th Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography, Atlanta, GA, Am. Meteor. Soc., 6.2., 2006. Cess, R. D. and Udelhofen, P. M.: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(1), 1019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016128, 2003. Evan, A. T., Heidinger, A. K., and Vimont, D. J.: Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L04701, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028083, 2007. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007, UNEP/WMO, 2007. ISCCP web site: available at: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov. Kidder, S. Q., and Vonder Haar, T. H.: Satellite meteorology: An introduction, Academic Press, 4666 pp., 1995. Liou, K. N: An introduction to atmospheric radiation, Academic Press, California, USA, 583 pp., 2002. Lucarini, V., Calmanti, S., Dell'Aquila, A., Ruti, P. M., and Speranza, A: Intercomparison of the northern hemisphere winter mid-latitude atmospheric variability of the IPCC models, Clim. Dynam., 28(7), 829–848, 2007. Lucarini, V.: Validation of Climate Models, in Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change, edited by: Philander, G., SAGE (Thousand Oaks, USA), 1053–1057, 2008. Lucarini, V., Danihlik, R., Kriegerova, I., and Speranza, A.: Hydrological cycle in the Danube basin in present-day and XXII century simulations by IPCCAR4 global climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D09107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009167, 2008. Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, 2007. PCMDI web site: available at: <a href="http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov">http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov</a>, last access: 2010. Pincus, R., Batstone, C. P., Hofmann, R. J. P., Taylor, K. E., and Glecker, P. J.: Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation, and radiation in climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D14209, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009334, 2008. Poetzsch-Heffter, C., Liu, Q., Ruperecht, E., and Simmer, C.: Effect of cloud types on the earth radiation budget calculated with the ISCCP Cl dataset: Methodology and initial results, J. Clim., 8(4), 829–843, 1995. Reichler, T. and Kim, J.: How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89(3), 303–311, 2008. Ridout, J. A. and Rosmond, T. E.: Global modeling of cloud radiative effects using ISCCP cloud data, J. Clim., 9(7), 1479–1496, 1996. Rossow, W. B., Kinsella, E., Wolf, A., and Garder, L. C.: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) description of reduced resolution radiance data. WMO/TD, 58, 163 pp., 1987. Rossow, W. B.and Schiffer, R. A.: ISCCP cloud data products, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72(1), 2–20, 1991. Rossow, W. B. and Garder, L. C.: Cloud detection using satellite measurements of infrared and visible radiances for ISCCP, J. Clim., 6(12), 2341–2369, 1993a. Rossow, W. B. and Garder, L. C.: Validation of ISCCP cloud detections, J. Clim., 6(12), 2370–2393, 1993b. Rossow, W. B., Walker, A. W., and Garder, L. C.: Comparison of ISCCP and other cloud amounts, J. Clim., 6(12), 2394–2418, 1993. Rossow, W. B., Walker, A. W., Beuschel, D. E., and Roiter, M. D.: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) Documentation of New Cloud Datasets, WMO/TD.-No, 737, 115 pp., 1996. Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80(11), 2261–2287, 1999. Rossow, W. B. and Duenas, E. N.: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) web site, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 85, 167–172, 2004. Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R., Hansen, J. E., Aleinov, I., Bell, N., Bauer, M., Bauer, S., Cairns, B., Canuto, V., and Cheng, Y.: Present-day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in situ, satellite, and reanalysis data, J. Clim., 19(2), 153–192, 2006. Senior, C. A.: Comparison of mechanisms of cloud-climate feedbacks in GCMs, J. Climate, 12, 1480–1489, 1999. Stephens, G. L., Tsay, S. C., Stackhouse Jr, P. W., and Flatau, P.: The relevance of the microphysical and radiative properties of cirrus clouds to climate and climate feedback, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1742–1753, 1990. Stowe, L. L., Jacobowitz, H., Ohring, G., Knapp, K. R., and Nalli, N. R.: The advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder atmosphere (PATMOS) climate dataset: Initial analyses and evaluations, J. Clim., 15(11),1243–1260, 2002. Stowasser, M. and Hamilton, K.: Relationship between shortwave cloud radiative forcing and local meteorological variables compared in observations and several global climate models, J. Clim., 19(17), 4344–4359, 2006. Su, H., Waliser, D. E., Jiang, J. H., Li, J., Read, W. G., Waters, J. W., and Tompkins, A. M.: Relationships of upper tropospheric water vapor, clouds and SST: MLS observations, ECMWF analyses and GCM simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L22802, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027582, 2006. Tsushima, Y., Emori, S., Ogura, T., Kimoto, M., Webb, M. J., Williams, K. D., Ringer, M. A., Soden, B. J., Li, B., and Andronova, N.: Importance of the mixed-phase cloud distribution in the control climate for assessing the response of clouds to carbon dioxide increase: a multi-model study, Clim. Dynam., 27(2), 113–126, 2006. Vavrus, S., Waliser, D., Schweiger, A., and Francis, J.: Simulations of 20th and 21st centery Arctic cloud amount in the global climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4, Clim. Dyn., 33(7–8), 1099–1115, 2008. Waliser, D. E., Li, J. F., Woods, C. P., Austin, R. T., Bacmeister, J., Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J. H., Kuang, Z., Meng, H., Minnis, P., Platnick, S., B. Rossow, W. B., Stephens, G. L., Sun-Mack, S., Tao, W, Tompkins, A. M., Vane, D. G., Walker, C, and Wu, D. Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D00A21, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010015, 2009. Weare, B. C.: A comparison of AMIP II model cloud layer properties with ISCCP D2 estimates. Clim. Dynam., 22(2), 281–292, 2004. Webb, M., Senior, C., Bony, S., and Morcrette, J. J.: Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models, Clim. Dynam., 17(12), 905–922, 2001. Wilkinson, J. M., Hogan, R. J., Illingworth, A. J., and Benedetti, A.: Use of a lidar forward model for global comparisons of cloud fraction between the ICESat lidar and the ECMWF model, Mon. Weather Rev., 136(10), 3742–3759, 2008. Williams, K. D., Ringer, M. A., Senior, C. A., Webb, M. J., McAvaney, B. J., Andronova, N., Bony, S., Dufresne, J. L., Emori, S., and Gudgel, R.: Evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change in an intercomparison of climate models, Clim. Dynam., 26(2), 145–165, 2006. Woods, C. P., Waliser, D. E., Li, J.-L., Austin, R. T., Stephens, G. L., and Vane, D. G.: Evaluating CloudSat ice water content retrievals using a cloud-resolving model: Sensitivities to frozen particle properties, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D00A11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009941, 2008. Wylie, D. P., Menzel, W. P., Woolf, H. M., and Strabala, K. I.: Four years of global cirrus cloud statistics using HIRS, J. Clim., 7(12), 1972–1986, 1994. Yao, M. S.and Del Genio, A. D.: Effects of cloud parameterization on the simulation of climate changes in the GISS GCM. J. Clim., 12, 761–779, 1999.